About 95% of the rejections/blocked from postscreen show up as “blocked by
zen.spamhaus.org” in the logs even though I have several other RBLs checked by
postscreen. Almost all the ones that are not listing zen, are listing the DUL
list, and the rest are listing “dnsbl.sorbs.net” (without a pref
--On Thursday, September 04, 2014 11:23 AM -0600 LuKreme
wrote:
About 95% of the rejections/blocked from postscreen show up as "blocked
by zen.spamhaus.org" in the logs even though I have several other RBLs
checked by postscreen.
RBL rejections are generally done in order listed. You list z
LuKreme:
> How does post screen decide which RBL to list in the log?
It blames the DNSBL with the largest weight.
The initial postscreen implementation blamed the DNSBL that replied
first. That was considered misleading, especially when that DNSBL
contributed very little to the total score.
Quanah Gibson-Mount:
> --On Thursday, September 04, 2014 11:23 AM -0600 LuKreme
> wrote:
>
> > About 95% of the rejections/blocked from postscreen show up as "blocked
> > by zen.spamhaus.org" in the logs even though I have several other RBLs
> > checked by postscreen.
>
> RBL rejections are gen
On 04 Sep 2014, at 10:44 , Wietse Venema wrote:
> LuKreme:
>> How does post screen decide which RBL to list in the log?
>
> It blames the DNSBL with the largest weight.
>
> The initial postscreen implementation blamed the DNSBL that replied
> first. That was considered misleading, especially wh
--On Thursday, September 04, 2014 1:47 PM -0400 Wietse Venema
wrote:
postscreen queries DNS[BW]Ls in parallel. The blame is based on the
DNSBL weight, as described in my other follow-up.
Ah, sorry, I should have noticed postscreen vs postfix. ;)
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Server Arch
LuKreme:
> On 04 Sep 2014, at 10:44 , Wietse Venema wrote:
> > LuKreme:
> >> How does post screen decide which RBL to list in the log?
> >
> > It blames the DNSBL with the largest weight.
> >
> > The initial postscreen implementation blamed the DNSBL that replied
> > first. That was considered
Am 04.09.2014 um 18:23 schrieb LuKreme:
dwl.spamhaus.org=127.0.2.[2;3]*-3
swl.spamhaus.org=127.0.2.[12;13]*-3
AFAIR someone posted a few months ago that those lists are empty. Has
that changed?
--
Alex JOST
>Am 04.09.2014 um 18:23 schrieb LuKreme:
>>
>>dwl.spamhaus.org=127.0.2.[2;3]*-3
>>swl.spamhaus.org=127.0.2.[12;13]*-3
>AFAIR someone posted a few months ago that those lists are empty. Has that
>changed?
Nope. They are still empty. I just checked my fresh data feed and
they only have
